FAIR GAME
W
ASTHMA STUDY
Do you take combination medications to keep your asthma controlled? Wouldn’t it be nice to take less medication and still have well controlled asthma? At Vermont Lung Center we will test two ways of decreasing treatment: 1. Reducing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid while keeping the long-acting beta agonist dose the same.
To be eligible to take part in the Long-Acting Beta Agonist Step Down Study (LASST): • 12 years or older • Under the care of a physician for well-controlled asthma using a combination of asthma medications If you qualify, you will undergo lung function testing, receive study medication and will be compensated for your time.
12 FAIR GAME
SEVEN DAYS
04.03.13-04.10.13
SEVENDAYSVT.COM
2. Stopping the long-acting beta agonist while keeping the inhaled cortiscosteroid dose the same.
Call 802-847-2193 or fax 802-847-4187 or email vlc@uvm.edu.
4v-vtlung020613-asthma.indd 1
No Laughing Matter
hat’s so funny about banning corporate contributions to political candidates? That’s what Sen. DAVE ZUCKERMAN (P/D-Chittenden) was wondering last Thursday night when several colleagues began to chuckle during a roll call vote on a tough new campaign-finance rule. For years, the Vermont Senate had resisted taking up an amendment that would prohibit corporations from donating directly to political campaigns. Incumbent politicians didn’t want to end a practice that benefits them — but they certainly didn’t want to go on record opposing limits on corporate money in politics. On Thursday, the question was finally called. Late in the evening, after hours of debate on a comprehensive campaign-finance bill, the Senate voted 21 to 8 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. PETER GALBRAITH (D-Windham) banning direct corporate contributions. Among those voting yes were some who had previously opposed the provision, such as Sens. JOHN CAMPBELL (D-Windsor) and DICK SEARS (D-Bennington). Another yeasayer, Sen. ANN CUMMINGS (D-Washington), had given a speech just moments before the vote inveighing against the corporate contribution ban. “I have yet to hear anyone define what is the problem we’re solving,” Cummings said. To Zuckerman, the sudden switcheroos seemed suspect. Were the last-minute converts simply trying to save face? Or did they know the fix was in — and the campaignfinance bill would never see the light of day? When the roll call concluded, Zuckerman stood up on the Senate floor and said, “I hope the ‘yes’ votes were sincere.” That’s a no-no in the Senate’s rules of decorum, which quaintly prohibit members from questioning their colleague’s motives on the floor. Later that night, Zuckerman apologized for the public slight. But the ponytailed Prog, who cosponsored Galbraith’s amendment, stands by his skepticism. “I was frustrated having heard people laughing while voting yes on the amendment and making eye contact with others with similar sentiments as I realized they were likely to kill the underlying bill,” Zuckerman says. “Later on, one member said to me, ‘We voted for it because we wanted to be on record supporting campaign finance,’ but that was with the knowledge that they were going to then not vote for [the full bill].” He adds, “I felt that was a bit cynical.” Sears, for one, admits to engaging in a modicum of chuckling, but he claims
3/22/13 12:49 PM
OPEN SEASON ON VERMONT POLITICS BY PAUL HEINTZ
his vote was sincere — and contends that Zuckerman was “out of line” to cast such aspersions. “I know a lot of people were absolutely surprised the Galbraith amendment got the votes it did, so there was some smiling going on,” Sears says. “I was looking at [Lt. Gov. PHIL SCOTT], and he was surprised as the vote carried on at the number of senators voting yes. I started to chuckle a little bit.” Sen. CLAIRE AYER (D-Addison), who was one of six Democrats and two Republicans to oppose the Galbraith amendment, shares Zuckerman’s view. “As soon as the roll got past me, it was clear they were voting for it because they were going to vote the bill down,” she says.
FOR THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW, A LEGISLATURE THAT
SWEARS UP AND DOWN IT WANTS TO REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS
WILL HAVE FAILED TO REALLY TRY. Sure enough, immediately after the amendment passed, Sears and other campaign-finance reform opponents drew their knives and slashed the bill to pieces. They complained that the penalties for violating campaign law were too strict — and that the bill hadn’t been properly vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. DICK MAZZA (D-Grand Isle), who voted for the Galbraith amendment, then moved to send the bill back to Judiciary for further vetting. This late in the session, such a move would surely kill the bill, as Sears, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, confirmed. “I will not commit to getting a bill out this session,” Sears warned his colleagues. “I’m fine with looking at the bill maybe next year, but I want to make it clear that if you vote to do this, the bill will not be voted on this year.” That elicited an emotional reaction from Sen. JEANETTE WHITE (D-Windham), whose Senate Committee on Government Operations has labored for years to update the state’s campaign-finance laws. “It’s very clear to me that people don’t like the limits, don’t like the reporting, don’t like the bill itself,” she said, her voice quavering. “I would just ask us to vote it down right now.”
In the end, the Senate neither voted the bill down nor dispatched it to Judiciary. Instead, Campbell, the Senate president pro tem, ordered the bill to lie. That means it’ll languish in legislative purgatory until a senator brings it back up. Did Galbraith’s amendment kill the bill — or was it doomed from the start? Galbraith himself says that’s beside the point. “The fact that there were 21 votes in favor of banning direct corporate contributions is a major statement,” he says. “Not everybody may have been enthused about that position, but it’s hard to see how they could vote against that position next time.” So what’s next for the bill? Campbell and White both say they hope to resurrect campaign-finance reform this week — once they’ve addressed concerns that came up in debate. But here’s some cold hard math: With a month remaining in the legislative session, an 88-page bill rewriting the state’s campaign-finance laws still hasn’t won preliminary approval in the Senate — let alone in House committee and on the House floor. Which means that for the third year in a row, a legislature that swears up and down that it wants to reduce the influence of money in politics will have failed to really try. It’s almost enough to make you chuckle. But not quite.
Citizens Divided
If you believe Zuckerman, at least a few cynical chuckleheads voted yes on the Galbraith amendment only to turn around and beat the underlying bill to within an inch of its life. But what about the eight people who voted against banning corporate money in politics? Those would be Sens. Ayer, White, CHRIS BRAY (D-Addison), PEG FLORY (R-Rutland), ELDRED FRENCH (D-Rutland), GINNY LYONS (D-Chittenden), ALICE NITKA (D-Windsor) and DIANE SNELLING (R-Chittenden). Oddly, all but Flory and Bray voted in favor of a resolution last year calling for a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United and get corporate money out of politics. Flory voted against that resolution; Bray wasn’t serving in the legislature at the time. The resolution’s chief sponsor was Lyons, who became a frequent spokeswoman for ridding politics of corporate cash. “The constitution is for people, not for corporations. Money does not equal speech,” she said at a Montpelier rally in November 2011. “The infusion of money into the electoral process results in a lack of transparency in our open elections.” So why didn’t Lyons back the Galbraith amendment?